Path: utzoo!mnetor!frank
From: frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Royal vs Adobe
Message-ID: <5367@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 90 13:08:49 GMT
References: <27618215MES@MSU) <18000049@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) <5363@mnetor.UUCP> <11255@wpi.wpi.edu> <5366@mnetor.UUCP> <11320@wpi.wpi.edu>
Reply-To: frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 30

In article <11320@wpi.wpi.edu) macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) writes:
)Right... so, why are some people upset over Apple's move to improve
)their font technology?  We've got a situation where Apple improves their
)system architechture so we can drop Royal fonts, which is a better and
)probably more affordable font system, and existing Adobe fonts, all into
)the system folder. Not only can we use two technologies, but a side effect
)is that it will break up the monopoly that Adobe seems to hold with their
)font copyrights, which usually intends to increase selection, and lower
)prices. 
)
)That's my point. I guess my original follow-up probably was misguided, but
)you seemed to flat out reject Royal technology. The way you made it sound,
)it seemed like you'd rather stick with Adobe and system 6....

My intention was to make it sound like a question (hence all those
question marks :-) You made several vague statements about Royal
being better, and I just want to know why. In the short term, I will
continue to use existing technology. In the long term, I do *not* want 
two imaging technologies on my machine. I'll stick with Adobe because
I have no choice, and with System 6 until 7 is available (and then some).
My goal is to get work done, not watch my suppliers battle it out over
technicalities. I'd much rather see Apple put more effort into System
7. It's late, and they've already pushed off many of its features
into 1992. That's my point.


-- 
Frank Kolnick,
Basis Computer Systems Inc.
UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank